Are the SDGs a scam?!
Introduction
Recently, two interesting pieces were published that are quite sobering or in some cases even extremely critical of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
I do think it is important that we question and critique our assumptions on an ongoing basis, so today we are having a look at these publications so that we can think critically about the 2030 Agenda. Just because I may think the framework is a positive development for humanity and the planet overall, it does not mean that there aren’t some problems and contradictions that need to be addressed.
I will be going over a letter signed by 100 scientists, teachers and experts who argue the SDGs are a failure and a Nature article that looks at the political impact of the SDGs… or lack thereof. Taken together, I think these publications force us to confront some uncomfortable truths about the goals’ helpfulness and achievability.
People will suffer more if professionals delude themselves about sustainable development – A Letter to UN
On May 23, alongside a conference in Bali on Disaster Risk Reduction, 100 academics from 37 countries published a letter titled “People will suffer more if professionals delude themselves about sustainable development – A Letter to UN.” As you can tell by the title, the letter is extremely critical of the SDGs.
It calls for an “urgent refocusing of international aid and cooperation”, and states that “failure to meet the SDGs is an indication of a systemic problem.” The authors of the letter critique capitalism and economic growth and say that the “assumptions that underpin the SDGs are invalid.” They argue that the SDGs are a failure because they are based on capitalism which requires economic growth to lift people out of poverty. They also state that little progress has been made and in some cases has even regressed. They ask “the UN to drop the redundant and unhelpful ideology of Sustainable Development. And instead, enable communities to become more resilient locally.” They also call for more localized trade and energy production, alongside equitable degrowth of wealthy economies.
Now, while I think a number of these points are valid and that we all should be quite critical of capitalism and unfettered economic growth, I do think the letter is very black and white. It also misses some important factors that we need to consider when looking at how we are progressing on the Goals. While the letter does make brief mention of the pandemic and alludes to climate change, it makes zero mention of the multiple conflicts the world is facing right now. Much of the regression we see on progress towards the SDGs can be very much attributed to these three factors so a more complete analysis would show that these shocks to the system are putting us in negative feedback loops that make it harder and harder to achieve sustainable development.
I do think capitalism has a role to play in this and that localization could be one potential solution, but I don’t think those assertions mean that we should throw out the SDGs completely. If anything, I think having a set of goals we can collectively to aspire to and a common language that can be employed by all sectors of society is actually extremely helpful. So what I am ultimately saying, is while I may agree with some of the points around more measured and intentional growth and capitalism needing a rethink, I don’t think the right conclusion to draw is that we should abandon the principle sustainable development, I think if anything it shows we should further commit to the principle and take it more seriously.
Here’s an interesting critique of the letter, as well.
Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals
On June 20th, an article was published in Nature called “Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals.” This piece is specifically looking at if the SDGs have actually led to transformative political change. The article is the result of analysis of over 3,000 scientific studies published between January 2016 and April 2021, so virtually the entire period we have been implementing the SDGs.
The high-level findings of the article are that “the SDGs have had some political impact on institutions and policies. However, this impact has been largely discursive, affecting the way actors understand and communicate about sustainable development. But more profound normative and institutional impact, from legislative action to changing resource allocation, remains rare.” In other words, the SDGs have provided a common language and understanding but have done very little in terms of changing behaviour or decision-making.
“The scientific evidence suggests only limited transformative political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals thus far.” - Nature Article
The article does recognize that the SDGs are the “most comprehensive and detailed attempt by the United Nations to advance sustainable development” but what is so interesting is that the evidence to date shows that because the goals are non-legally binding and tend to be quite broad, they provide a lot leeway for actors to interpret the goals and act according to their own interests. Many actors simply cherry pick the goals that are most convenient or that they were already pursing before, so what we are seeing is very selective implementation. The authors go so far as to say that “both the Global South and the Global North largely prioritize the more socioeconomic SDGs over the environmentally oriented ones, which is in alignment with their long-standing national development policies.” This really resonates with me, and I have seen this a lot in my work. Basically, start with the easiest first and put off all the others indefinitely, but no one can claim you aren’t acting because you’re working on some of them right?
There are some bright spots. The paper does find that cities have been more pioneering and progressive than national governments, and that the SDGs have been effective in getting corporations interested in participating, but that this should be approached with caution as there is a high risk of ‘SDG washing’.
The article also assessed the realism of having such a huge and all-encompassing framework. It found that some academics see synergies among SDGs as an opportunity for more holistic policy, while others think that inherent trade-offs in the 2030 Agenda are too often neglected in academic research and require more attention. The article also points out there are a number of practical barriers that still exist to integrating the SDGs in political and administrative systems including: cumbersome bureaucracies, lack of political interest, short-term political agendas and waning ownership over the SDGs. All of which I have definitely seen first-hand.
I have spoken about the Leave No One Behind principle on this channel but the study finds limited evidence that it is being implemented at all. In fact, the authors state that “internationally, there is no evidence that the adoption of the SDGs has advanced the position of the world’s most vulnerable countries in global governance and economy” and that “studies doubt whether the SDGs will ever be able to transform legal frameworks towards increased political participation of these countries.” On the positive “the literature suggests that civil society organizations use the SDGs as a reference framework to hold governments accountable, which points to the advantages of granting larger roles to civil society organizations in shaping and implementing policy initiatives such as the SDGs.”
And similar to the first letter, this article also raised concerns about capitalism, consumption and economic growth. The authors found that “there are indications that the lack of ambition and coherence results partially from the design of the SDGs, for example, global economic growth as envisaged in SDG 8 might be incompatible with some environmental protection targets under SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15.” And that “certain studies also argue that the focus of the SDGs on neoliberal sustainable development is detrimental to planetary integrity and justice.”
Here’s an interesting summary of the full article.
Scam?
No, I definitely would not use that word. I think the 2030 Agenda is a very well-intention framework that has a lot of value in making clear what areas of society need the most action. It is also ground-breaking in its ability to get wide-scale buy-in the way that it did. However, I think both of these publications I spoke about today really point to just how difficult it is to make systemic change, especially in politically-motivated institutions. I think these critiques should make us call into question the approach we take to large-scale systems change. Is non-binding enough? Do we have any other realistic options to that approach? Is the agenda just too big that it allows for selective implementation? Would it be better to have something more narrow to rally behind? Would a narrow approach leave too many people out? Do we risk these types of frameworks becoming PR tools rather than instruments of change? Should we be satisfied with “some change” or should we be militant in always demanding better?
I think we can say now, that there is virtually no way we will achieve the SDGs by 2030, and as sad as I am to say that, I think we all know that true change takes a very long time. Unfortunately, time is not on our side, so the best thing we can do is learn from these experiences and continue to iterate. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but let’s not be complacent either.
Keep Learning
Here are a few great resources for further reading and learning:
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015, United Nations)
2020 Sustainable Development Goals Report (2020, UN Statistics)
How to Support?
With every video, I provide links to related organizations that you may or may not choose to support or learn more about.
This particular topic is very all-encompassing so it is difficult to note a single organization that you can support to “help the cause.” Instead, I recommend checking out Charity Navigator’s listing of charities related to sustainable development. You can also look around your local community for organizations that are focused on helping people or the planet!